2008 (2) TMI 914

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....esh and continued as such till December, 2005. On 6.1.2003 sanction was given for construction of village road for which the Panchayat received a sum of ₹ 20,000/-. According to the appellant, the respondents herein after coming to know of the grant of sanction for ₹ 20,000/- pressurized her for construction of a road to their houses instead of constructing a road for which sanction was received. Thereafter, the work on the sanctioned project commenced. On 13.10.2003 when the construction was in progress, the respondents came to the work site at about 4.30 p.m. and abused the complainant in filthy and derogatory language and threatened her with dire consequences. They forcibly obstructed the appellant and the labourers from doin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palampur partly accepted the application and dropped proceedings against applicants 1 and 2 namely, Hem Raj and Swroop Chand on the ground that the said applicants cannot be tried for the same offence. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Criminal Revision Petition was filed which was numbered as Criminal Revision No.111 of 2006. By the impugned order, the revision was dismissed in summary manner. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that after issuance of summons the learned Magistrate ought not to have directed discharge of the accused persons. In any event, the dismissal of the revision petition in a summary manner without indicating ....